Robert E. Kraut

From WikiPapers
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert E. Kraut is an author from United States.


Only those publications related to wikis are shown here.
Title Keyword(s) Published in Language DateThis property is a special property in this wiki. Abstract R C
Identifying shared leadership in Wikipedia Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems English 2011 In this paper, we introduce a method to measure shared leadership in Wikipedia as a step in developing a new model of online leadership. We show that editors with varying degrees of engagement and from peripheral as well as central roles all act like leaders, but that core and peripheral editors show different profiles of leadership behavior. Specifically, we developed machine learning models to automatically identify four types of leadership behaviors from 4 million messages sent between Wikipedia editors. We found strong evidence of shared leadership in Wikipedia, with editors in peripheral roles producing a large proportion of leadership behaviors. 4 2
Beyond Wikipedia: Coordination and Conflict in Online Production Groups Wiki
Social computing
Collective intelligence
Distributed cognition
Online production
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work English 2010 Online production groups have the potential to transform the way that knowledge is produced and disseminated. One of the most widely used forms of online production is the wiki, which has been used in domains ranging from science to education to enterprise. We examined the development of and interactions between coordination and conflict in a sample of 6811 wiki production groups. We investigated the influence of four coordination mechanisms: intra-article communication, inter-user communication, concentration of workgroup structure, and policy and procedures. We also examined the growth of conflict, finding the density of users in an information space to be a significant predictor. Finally, we analyzed the effectiveness of the four coordination mechanisms on managing conflict, finding differences in how each scaled to large numbers of contributors. Our results suggest that coordination mechanisms effective for managing conflict are not always the same as those effective for managing task quality, and that designers must take into account the social benefits of coordination mechanisms in addition to their production benefits. 0 4
Socialization tactics in Wikipedia and their effects Socialization
English 2010 Socialization of newcomers is critical both for conventional groups. It helps groups perform effectively and the newcomers develop commitment. However, little empirical research has investigated the impact of specific socialization tactics on newcomers' commitment to online groups. We examined WikiProjects, subgroups in Wikipedia organized around working on common topics or tasks. In study 1, we identified the seven socialization tactics used most frequently: invitations to join, welcome messages, requests to work on project-related tasks, offers of assistance, positive feedback on a new member's work, constructive criticism, and personal-related comments. In study 2, we examined their impact on newcomers' commitment to the project. Whereas most newcomers contributed fewer edits over time, the declines were slowed or reversed for those socialized with welcome messages, assistance, and constructive criticism. In contrast, invitations led to steeper declines in edits. These results suggest that different socialization tactics play different roles in socializing new members in online groups compared to offline ones. 0 3
A Jury of your Peers: Quality, Experience and Ownership in Wikipedia Wikipedia peer peer review wikiwork experience ownership quality WikiSym2009: Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration 2009 Wikipedia is a highly successful example of what mass collaboration in an informal peer review system can accomplish. In this paper, we examine the role that the quality of the contributions, the experience of the contributors and the ownership of the content play in the decisions over which contributions become part of Wikipedia and which ones are rejected by the community. We introduce and justify a versatile metric for automatically measuring the quality of a contribution. We find little evidence that experience helps contributors avoid rejection. In fact, as they gain experience, contributors are even more likely to have their work rejected. We also find strong evidence of ownership behaviors in practice despite the fact that ownership of content is discouraged within Wikipedia. 0 6
Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: quality through coordination English 2008 Wikipedia's success is often attributed to the large numbers of contributors who improve the accuracy, completeness and clarity of articles while reducing bias. However, because of the coordination needed to write an article collaboratively, adding contributors is costly. We examined how the number of editors in Wikipedia and the coordination methods they use affect article quality. We distinguish between explicit coordination, in which editors plan the article through communication, and implicit coordination, in which a subset of editors structure the work by doing the majority of it. Adding more editors to an article improved article quality only when they used appropriate coordination techniques and was harmful when they did not. Implicit coordination through concentrating the work was more helpful when many editors contributed, but explicit coordination through communication was not. Both types of coordination improved quality more when an article was in a formative stage. These results demonstrate the critical importance of coordination in effectively harnessing the "wisdom of the crowd" in online production environments. 0 4
Mopping up: modeling wikipedia promotion decisions Administrators
Organizational behavior
Policy capture
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work English 2008 This paper presents a model of the behavior of candidates for promotion to administrator status in Wikipedia. It uses a policy capture framework to highlight similarities and differences in the community's stated criteria for promotion decisions to those criteria actually correlated with promotion success. As promotions are determined by the consensus of dozens of voters with conflicting opinions and unwritten expectations, the results highlight the degree to which consensus is truly reached. The model is fast and easily computable on the fly, and thus could be applied as a self-evaluation tool for editors considering becoming administrators, as a dashboard for voters to view a nominee's relevant statistics, or as a tool to automatically search for likely future administrators. Implications for distributed consensus-building in online communities are discussed. 0 1
Taking up the mop: identifying future Wikipedia administrators English 2008 0 1